Didnt pay to drop someone off at Gatwick airport: Do I have a defence?

Fruitcake

(a) It is too late to put the case on hold
(c) You don't need to confirm your address for service if they have the correct address, and you haven't moved.

(b) It is therefore pointless sending an email just to tell the solicitors you have sent an SAR to the claimant.

bamme89

Coupon-mad said:

bamme89 said:

Thanks guys, I am now certain of the PPC it’s definitely national car parks (EUK). Thanks also for confirming I have some time to submit a defence

I am struggling to figure out if I have a defence though, given that I’ve missed the LBC stage and won’t get info from submitting an SAR til after the defence, and my lack of clarity over exactly what happened as described in my above post

i feel like my strongest point so far is the 10min grace period and the logic that if I had known about a £5 charge I’d have paid it as it’s not something I couldn’t have afforded. Are these strong enough points?

i cannot find any examples of similar situations, I have searched the forum for Gatwick airport PCN etc. to find similar defences but I can’t see any that match my situation

Why not just search for Airport defence?

Not Gatwick specifically.

I am not sure why you are admitting to driving in a standard Airport defence, where the registered keeper can't be held liable.

I picked up on this point and actually was not driving, I had a flight that day and pretty sure I can provide the ticket. I assumed I was still the one responsible for paying hence me writing in first person.

Fruitcake also mentioned bylaws in this thread. I admittedly had great difficulty reading and understanding schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012, and stopped when I was (likely incorrectly) interpreting it to read that the registered keeper IS liable. But I did find this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5465816/apcoa-pcn-for-airport-drop-off-how-to-successfully-dispute

Its actually designed as a response to the PPC and to POPLA, not to be used at the stage I am at. But is it ok to use this info as a defence? For ease I have cut and pasted below the bits that seemed like they could be used as a defence:

Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, states that: “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following on, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”, and that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

I respectfully advise that there will be no admissions as to who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the alleged contravention and no assumptions can be drawn. Further, from these sections of PoFA 2012 we may conclude that if statutory provision exists that imposes a liability in respect of parking on the land, PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability for any charges incurred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. 

As per and further to my reasons for appealing in the attached document, I submit this appeal to you as airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land

Coupon-mad

NCP don't issue byelaws penalties anyway, so don't get bogged down thinking they can hold you liable under byelaws either.

That stuff is too long but parts are useful.

Just write in para 2 that you were not driving and will be able to evidence that you were only a passenger that day, and in fact caught a flight.

Then in para 3 just write about why the Claimant cannot hold a registered keeper liable.  As a matter of fact and law, the Claimant (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'.  If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because the Claimant is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' was not and never attempted to be a penalty.  It was created for their own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and the Claimant has relied on contract law allegations of breach against a driver only. The Defendant was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

bamme89

Coupon-mad said:

NCP don't issue byelaws penalties anyway, so don't get bogged down thinking they can hold you liable under byelaws either.

That stuff is too long but parts are useful.

Just write in para 2 that you were not driving and will be able to evidence that you were only a passenger that day, and in fact caught a flight.

Then in para 3 just write about why the Claimant cannot hold a registered keeper liable.  As a matter of fact and law, the Claimant (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'.  If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because the Claimant is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' was not and never attempted to be a penalty.  It was created for their own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and the Claimant has relied on contract law allegations of breach against a driver only. The Defendant was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

wow thank you so much!!! I will get back onto the process in the newbie thread!  

Johnersh

fwiw the signage at Gatwick is appalling. 

It’s airport access with liability to charge  via ANPR so effectively you become subject to a charge even without stopping. It is in essence impossible to read the terms and decide you don’t like them. That makes it (arguably) the imposition of a contract term unfairly.

Further with no means to pay on site (despite the fact that the £5 charge permits up to 10 mins) it creates a much higher risk of forgotten payments.

I anticipate that the system will be reviewed in time.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

fwiw the signage at Gatwick is appalling. 

It’s airport access with liability to charge  via ANPR so effectively you become subject to a charge even without stopping. It is in essence impossible to read the terms and decide you don’t like them. That makes it (arguably) the imposition of a contract term unfairly.

Further with no means to pay on site (despite the fact that the £5 charge permits up to 10 mins) it creates a much higher risk of forgotten payments.

I anticipate that the system will be reviewed in time.

It's already the subject of a current BPA investigation for exactly those reasons.

APCOA at Heathrow is the same and that'll lead to another BPA complaint shortly, too.

bamme89

Ok so from what you have taught me I think I have a rough defence! Could somebody check it? Let me know if it is better in a new thread or more use to others who might be searching for the same thing

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the Defendant was not driving, and is able to evidence the fact they were a passenger that day and was in fact catching a flight.

3. Neither the Defendant or the driver of the vehicle noticed any clear signage around the stopping point. There was no parking meter or payment facility, or anything suggesting payment was required. Therefore no party in the vehicle was aware there was a charge. Given the road layout, nor would there have been a possibility of turning the vehicle around regardless - in essence it would have been impossible to read any terms and decide against them. This makes it (arguably) the imposition of a contract term unfairly. 

Furthermore, as a matter of fact and law, the Claimant (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'.  If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because the Claimant is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' was not and never attempted to be a penalty.  It was created for their own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and the Claimant has relied on contract law allegations of breach against a driver only. The Defendant was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

Coupon-mad

Every paragraph needs a number.

bamme89

Ah okay, to avoid messing up the rest of your layout I can put it like this?

3. Neither the Defendant or the driver of the vehicle noticed any clear signage around the stopping point. There was no parking meter or payment facility, or anything suggesting payment was required. Therefore no party in the vehicle was aware there was a charge. Given the road layout, nor would there have been a possibility of turning the vehicle around regardless - in essence it would have been impossible to read any terms and decide against them. This makes it (arguably) the imposition of a contract term unfairly. Furthermore, as a matter of fact and law, the Claimant (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'.  If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because the Claimant is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' was not and never attempted to be a penalty.  It was created for their own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and the Claimant has relied on contract law allegations of breach against a driver only. The Defendant was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

Coupon-mad

Far too long.  Just re-number the template. Almost everyone has to!